l09 20278 stereotypethreatsandmathtestperformance final 22nov

8/21/2019 L09 20278 StereotypeThreatsandMathTestPerformance Final 22nov

1/20

Checking your Typeset Proof

Multi-Authored Papers

In the case of multi-authored papers, authors are advised to collaborate when checkingthe typeset proof. One author should be nominated to either accept or submit corrections

on behalf of all of the authors of the paper.We can only accept one set of revisions, or one acceptance of the typeset proof, from the

nominated author. Once an author approves the typeset proof further revisions may not berequested.

Replying to us

After you review the typeset

then need to select the appropriate option to proceed.

Option 1: Accept Typeset Proof

To be selected when your paper is ready for publication- Please thoroughly check the typeset proof before accepting it. You will not have

further opportunities to make additional changes after the typeset proof has been

accepted.- Once you have accepted the typeset proof of your paper it will be ready to be

published. You will be notified when your paper has been published and given

instructions on how to access the published version.

Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset ProofTo be selected when your paper requires corrections

- - The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the

corrections have been completed you will be notified of the availability of arevised typeset proof for your approval.

Bibliographical Details

Please note that full bibliographical details (issue and page numbers) will not be availableuntil final publication of your paper. Once your paper has been published you will be able

to obtain these details. We will notify you as soon as your paper is published.


2/20

Checklist for Reviewing the Typeset Proof

We recommend that you print the typeset proof and proofread it slowly and with greatcare. Request that a colleague also proofread your paper as they may notice errors that

you may miss due to your familiarity with the content.

Remember to check your typeset proof for:- Completeness: inclusion of all text, figures, illustrations and tables

- Correct title and subtitle- Correct authorship and order of authors

- Current affiliation details- Heading levels

- Position and size of illustrations and figures

- Matching of captions to illustrations and figures- Position of tables- Presentation of quotes

- Presentation of equations- Footnotes and footnote numbering

- Inclusion of acknowledgements- References and reference style

- Typesetting or conversion errors

Please check the Journal Standard Style prior to requesting changes to style as we adhereto standard presentation requirements for all papers to ensure consistency throughout the

Journal.

It is important that all of your corrections (and those of your co-authors if applicable) aresubmitted to us in one communication.

Please note that careful proofreading is solely your responsibility.


3/20

Journal Standard Style

Order of the Paper:1. Cover page

2. Copyright/imprint page3. Paper: title/subtitle; author names with affiliation; abstract; keywords; body of

paper; acknowledgement (if applicable); reference list; appendix (if any); aboutthe author section

4. Journal colophon

Journal Standard Style:

Paper title/subtitle and all headings appear in Title Case whereby only definite

appear in lower case.

No italics in titles and subtitles.

Affiliation of the author will include only the name of the author, university or

organization name and country. Honorifics are not included.

Abstract will appear in italics as a single paragraph.

No italics included in the keyword list.

No footnotes attached to title/subtitle, authors or the abstract.

The first paragraph of the paper will appear in floating style - first three wordsappear in capital case and bold.

Footnotes within tables have separate numbering to that of the footnotes withinthe paper.

Hyphenation cannot be altered.

No underline will be included.

Figure captions are centred below the figure. The figure number and caption

appear on the same line.

Table titles appear above the table, left justified, in bold. The table number and

table title appear on the same line.

About the Author section: The honorific will reflect in this section. Contactdetails such as email addresses will not be included.


4/20

Documenting your Corrections

Changes to the Abstract

If you wish to make changes to the abstract of your paper please provide the revisedabstract either as a Word document (if there are also changes to the text), or by entering it

in the text box provided when you select Option 2.

Additional Authors

If you need to add a co-author we require the following information for each additional

author to be added:1. Name of the co-author

2. Affiliation details

3. Email address of the co-author (Mandatory)4. Short Biography (limit of 30 words)

5. Long Biography (limit of 200 words one paragraph only)

Corrections to Text

If you have changes to the text please complete these in the Word version of your paper

available at the link where you downloaded this PDF (or an existing word version). Youcan then upload the revised document for typesetting by selecting Option 2.

Corrections to Style:

You will need to clearly indicate all corrections in the following manner:

1. Page Number - paragraph number - line number - correction to be made

eg:1. Page 4 - last paragraph, line 4, please put a comma after Tom in the sentence Mary,

Tom, Jane and her friends...

The page number is the actual page of the PDF. As the paper has not been paginated yet,no numbers appear on the pages.

Submitting Corrections

available at the link you downloaded the

typeset proof from) and select Option 2.

Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof- Please upload the corrected Word document, or add your instructions for

corrections in the text box provided- Note that you can only upload one document, and this document must contain all

of the corrections (and those of your co-authors if applicable).

The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once thecorrections have been completed you will be notified of the availability of a revised

typeset proof for your approval.


5/20

www.learning-journal.com

The International

JOURNALof LEARNING

Volume 16

Stereotype Threats and Math Test Performance

Loredana Ruxandra Gherasim and Nicoleta Laura Popa


6/20

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNINGhttp://www.Learning-Journal.com

First published in 2009 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLCwww.CommonGroundPublishing.com.

© 2009 (individual papers), the author(s)© 2009 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables andmaps.

All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism orreview as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may bereproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and otherinquiries, please contact.

ISSN: 1447-9494Publisher Site: http://www.Learning-Journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING is peer-reviewed, supported byrigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary,ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance ispublished.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichanneltypesetting systemhttp://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/


7/20

Stereotype Threats and Math Test Performance

Loredana Ruxandra Gherasim, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University,

RomaniaNicoleta Laura Popa, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Romania

Abstract: Stereotyping can negatively affect tests performance, along with other factors as cognitive

resources, expectancies and perception on elds’ importance. Some studies suggest that effects of

stereotyping threats on tests performance can be decreased through improved attention and memory

capacities, or positivechanges in social identity. The study aimed to analyse the mediating effect of

ability level and contextual factors on stereotyping threats in solving math tests. A 2 (suggested ability

level: low/high) X 2 (contextual factors: present/absent) X 2 (gender: male/female) design had been

used. The sample included 231 eighthgrade students, aged 13 to 15, 110 boys and 121 girls. We used

a teacher-made math test, with items similar to national math tests. Contextual factors inuenced math

test performance, namely their presence improved the performance e. Study results do not support an

interaction effect of ability level and gender on math test performance. However, boys’ math perform-

ance increased when they could use contextual factors in explaining their performance, while girls’

performances are not signicantly inuenced in the same experimental conditions. Gender had no

signicant effect on math test performance. We assume that the math test has been perceived as very

important - a simulation for the nal national math exam.

Keywords: Stereotype Threats, Gender, Contextual Factors, Ability Level, Math Performance

Introduction

DESPITE THE LARGE amount of research reporting differences between malesand females in math performance and in attitude towards math there are still gaps

in appropriately explaining this phenomenon (Gallagher & Kaufman, 2005). Some

early research on this issue attributes boys’ higher math performance to superior

math ability, specically in solving spatial tasks (e.g. Benbow & Stanley, 1980). Later

studies challenge this conclusion, stating that differences in math performance are rooted in

stereotypic role beliefs, frequently communicated to children by adults. Teachers’ and parents’

beliefs expressed in their relations with children eventually inuence boys’ and girls’ math

self-efcacy, identication with math, expectations, condence and attitudes toward math

(e.g. Eccles & Jacobs, 1986; Eccles et al., 1990). These variables appear to be clearly related

to math performance (Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007), while emergence, development and complexcausality of gender differences in this specic area are still to be explained.

Gender Differences on Standardized Math Tests

Gender differences in math performance have been largely documented. Women are under-

represented in math, science and related elds at higher education level, even if they are

capable to perform well, and this particular situation is tentatively explained through higher

The International Journal of Learning

Volume 16, 2009, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494

© Common Ground, LoredanaRuxandra Gherasim, NicoletaLaura Popa, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]


8/20

dropout percentages than men (Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005; Keller & Dauenheimer,

2003). Although obvious in higher education, this difference favoring men is not identied

until middle and/or high school, as suggested by a rather large body of research and meta-

analysis. Apparently, there are no signicant gender differences in the understanding of

mathematical concepts per se and, moreover, gender differences favoring males seem to be

more evident in problem solving, whereas females (especially in elementary school) outper-

form males in computation/arithmetic (Hyde, Fennema & Lamon, 1990; Lummis &

Stevenson, 1990). Item difculty or item format seems to have a mediating effect on men

and women math performance. Thus, the male advantage is minimal on easy test items, but

grows as items become more difcult, or as items’ solving implies higher spatial aptitude

(Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Huguet & Régner, 2007).

A wide range of stereotypes have also been tested in the attempt to explain gender differ-

ences in math performance, from women’s supposed lack of ability in math and science

domains (Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005; O’Brien & Crandall, 2003). Negative gender

stereotyping seems to largely affect female math performance, as they grow older (Brown& Josephs, 1999; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003; Schmader & Johns, 2003).

Stereotype Threat as an Explanation of Gender Differences

The theory of stereotype threat states that stereotypes concerning the ability of groups can

have an adverse impact on test performance of members of such groups (Steele, 1997; Steele

& Aronson, 1995). Stereotype threat refers to the discomfort that stereotyped targets feel

when they are at risk of fullling the expectation of inferiority contained in a stereotype or

a reputation. According to Steele (1997) this discomfort arises whenever group members

run the risk of substantiating a stereotype that they lack intellectual ability. Researchers (e.g.

Steele, 1997; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999) asserts that people being members of a group

that can be negatively stereotyped in a social situation, carry an extra burden: their perform-

ance might be interpreted in terms of the stereotype; their performance tends to be consistent

with the stereotype, and this behavior serves to conrm the stereotype in the eyes of the be-

holders or for the members of the outgroups. Stereotype threat has proven to be a robust

phenomenon, applying to diverse groups, including women, ethnic minorities, and members

of groups with low socioeconomic and social status (Aronson et al., 1999; Quinn & Spencer,

2001; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Individuals exposed to negative stereotypes (in real settings or through experimental ma-

nipulations) also fail to perform according to their actual level or ability in testing situation.

Different explanations for have been provided for this effect. According to Nguyen & Ryan(2008) when stereotyped group members take standardized ability tests, their performance

may be partially undermined when they encounter cues of a salient negative stereotype in

the testing environment; their performance may be affected equally by situational or contex-

tual factors, which go beyond factors established to be inuential, as poverty, parental style,

socialization etc. Keller (2007) sustains that negative stereotypes undermine subjects’ per-

formance by interfering pressure of being judged or seen as conrming the negative expect-

ancy. Several studies found that rendering the expectations irrelevant to the testing situation

eliminated performance pressure and, in turn, underperformance (Cadinu et al., 2003; Steele,

Spencer & Aronson, 2002). To summarize, there is serious evidence supporting the assump-

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING


9/20

tion that negative stereotype can elicit a threat experience, and subsequently result in poorer

performance of targeted test takers.

Stereotype threat has been manipulated by researchers in experimental settings through

several strategies: participants may be asked to note biographical information of a demo-

graphic questionnaire either prior or after taking the test; they may be introduced into the

testing the situation as diagnosing their ability in certain domains, or their intelligence by

specications introduced via instructional set; alternatively, individuals may be targeted by

allegations of inferiority, and they may be informed that members of the outgroup, outper-

forms the participants’ ingroup (e.g. Cadinu et al, 2003; Abrams, Eller & Bryant, 2006;

Grimm et al., 2009).

Although, the stereotype model is not a general ability theory, it provides an explanation

for situational underperformance in the presence of a stereotype. Research suggests that the

stereotype threat model accounts for at least part of female underperformance in mathematics

tests. Recent work (e.g. Huguet & Régner, 2007; Cadinu et al., 2005) supports this idea:

women performing math problems after being told that gender differences in math do existand report having more negative math-related thoughts than women who did not receive this

information. Researchers have also shown, that women may perform signicantly worse on

a math test when they are told that it measures their abilities (thus making their intellectual

stigma relevant) than when told that it is nondiagnostic of ability (Brown & Day, 2006;

Brown & Josephs, 1999; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). Stereotype threat can inuence

behavior even in anticipation of the performance situation - priming stereotype threat can

reduce performance expectancies (Stangor, Carr, & Kiang, 1998). On the other hand, women

who are confronted with negative stereotypes about their group’s math ability may develop

a fear that their own behaviors may substantiate the negative stereotypes about women’s

math abilities in the eyes of others and this situational predicament can interfere with intel-

lectual performance and lead female students to perform below their potential (Aronson et

al., 1999; Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003).

As previously mentioned, task difculty may interfere with the effect of stereotype threat.

Women under stereotype threat performed better on an easy math test and worse on a difcult

math test than women who were not exposed to stereotype threat (O’Brien & Crandall; 2003;

Aronson et al., 1999). However, it seems that a test need not be difcult for stereotype threat

to occur: simply being in a situation where one can conrm a negative stereotype about

one’s group could be enough to cause this self-evaluative threat (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn,

1999). Although it is certainly possible that threat is attenuated once people learn that the

task they are to perform is easy, this knowledge may not completely negate the early effects

of the threat. Stereotype threat theory suggests that members of a stigmatized social groupare most likely to be threatened by a situational stereotype threat cue when a test is challenging

(O’Brien & Crandall, 2003). However, the empirical evidence for the moderating effects of

test difculty is mixed (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Contradictory research outcomes do not

undermine the importance of studying this moderator, and of understanding the potential

generalizability of stereotype threat effects from laboratory to real testing contexts.

The theory of stereotype threat states that stereotypes concerning the ability of groups can

have an adverse impact on test performance of members of such groups, particularly in those

who identify strongly with the domain of interest (Steele, 1997). As a consequence, a key

role is attributed to domain identication in stereotype threat theory. Although researchers

seem to agree on stronger effects of stereotype threat in the case of high level of domain

LOREDANA RUXANDRA GHERASIM, NICOLETA LAURA POPA


10/20

identication (such as women with special interest or ability in the eld of mathematics),

there are few studies indicating this afrmation (e.g. Aronson et al., 1999; Smith & White,

2001; Cadinu et al., 2003; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003).

An additional mediator of stereotype threat’s effect on female math performance is the

group composition. Research has found that people are quite sensitive to subtle variations

in the group composition of a room, which often operates to the detriment of those in the

minority; minority situations may be particularly problematic to females because they operate

under the burden of negative stereotypes (e.g. Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003; Stangor, Carr, &

Kiang, 1998). In math and science classrooms, females have to contend with stereotypes

alleging inferiority to males (Quinn & Spencer, 2001; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999).

Women anticipating gender solo status during an upcoming group task reported lower ex-

pectations for their performance, greater expectations of being gender stereotyped, and ex-

pressed the desire to change the gender composition of their group more than men (Inzlicht

& Ben-Zeev, 2003; Huguet & Régner, 2007).

Stereotype Threat, Age and Gender

Although less attention has been placed on stereotype threats effects in childhood, there is

also evidence that negative stereotypes operates in children. Children become aware of their

gender identity at a very young age, and they also believe, as early as rst grade, that boys

are better than girls in math-related areas (Lummis & Stevenson, 1990; Eccles et al., 1993;

Wigeld et al., 1997). Their belief is not necessarily erroneous, as differences favoring boys

on standardized math tests have sometimes been found, even among math-talented children

(Mills, Ablard, & Stumpf, 1993; Robinson et al., 1996). The fact that boys’ advantage ex-

presses itself more clearly when highly selective samples are retained is consistent with

stereotype threat theory. Evidence of stereotype threat in girls from the lower and upper

elementary school grades, and middle school facing a math test was found by Ambady et

al. (2001). Their study found stereotype threat effects (due to gender activation) in younger

and older girls (5- to 7-year-olds, 11- to 13-year-olds), but not in intermediate-age girls (8

to 10-year-olds).

A study conducted by Muzzatti and Agnoli (2007) on children showed that, in general,

boys state more strongly than do girls that males are better than females in mathematics,

whereas girls progressively shift their opinion from ingroup favoritism (in second grade) to

more stereotypical positions. In addition, authors reported a shift in both boys’ and girls’

beliefs to a more egalitarian perspective in early adolescence. These patterns of personal

gender stereotyping are reinforced by data about gender stereotyping of mathematics attributedto peers that are almost identical to personal views. Studies on young women and adolescent

girls (Keller, 2002; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003; Huguet & Régner, 2007) indicated that

they are inuenced by stereotype threat in classroom settings, as in laboratory experiments.

However, in the stereotype threat (vs. control) condition, researchers used an experimental

manipulation which is rather different than teachers’ messages in the classroom, and therefore

results are hardly transferable in real life situations. A study on sixth to seventh grade French

students (ages 10–12) conducted by Huguet & Régner (2007) provide evidence of the impact

of stereotype threat on schoolgirls in quasi-ordinary classroom circumstances: both genders

are represented and the negative gender stereotype is both implicitly and indirectly (rather

than explicitly and directly) activated. Authors identied the presence of the stereotype threat



11/20

effect in both experiments, concluding that girls’ performance (on a broader set of intellec-

tual tasks rather than math tests) was lower in both experimental situations.

The Present StudyThe study reported in the present article aimed to evaluate stereotype threat effects among

middle-school students in Romanian mixed-gender classroom settings, and researchers ex-

pected gender differences in math test performance (girls’ underachievement), and differences

between students in the self-handicapping condition versus those in the control condition.

The stereotype threat was indirectly/implicitly manipulated in the study, in students’ natural

settings (classrooms). The stereotype threat was activated by emphasizing the diagnostic

value of the math test for their high/low domain ability. As showed in previous research,

stereotype threat depress scores on various ability measures in laboratory settings, but fewer

studies address the same effect in test settings high in ecological validity (Wicherts, Dolan

& Hessen, 2005; Huguet & Régner, 2007), and subtle threat cues predict more variations intest scores than explicit manipulation of the stereotype threat condition (Walton & Cohen,

2003; Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Additionally, self-handicapping was manipulated in the ex-

periment: the experimental group has been provided an external handicap. It was predicted

that the presence of an external handicap (lack of adequate practice) would result in an in-

crease in upward counterfactual thinking, specically about the handicap itself. According

to some recent research ndings, the lack of adequate practice should provide a salient

reason for poor performance, a viable excuse for any subsequent poor performance, and

thus, produces better performance, especially among male subjects (Brown & Josephs, 1999;

McCrea, 2008; Hirt, McCrea & Boris, 2003).

Method

Participants and Design

Two hundreds thirty one eighth-grade students (from two public lower secondary schools

in Romania, county of Iasi) participated in the study (110 boys and 121 girls), aged between

13 and 15 years. No information regarding families’ socioeconomic status or education was

collected. Male and female participants were randomly assigned in a 2 (suggested ability

level: low vs. high) x 2 (contextual factors: external handicap present vs. absent) experimental

design, without previous knowledge on their level of math achievement.

Materials

Test items are similar to the national math test taken by lower secondary school students in

seventh and eight-grade. Two secondary school math teachers have been involved in

designing the test, based on Romanian National Curriculum and evaluation standards. The

resulted math test includes two types of items: nine ll-in items (students receive stem

statements that includes one blank for the result of a math exercise) and three problem-

solving items, involving 2-4 math reasoning and computation tasks. Half of the items include

arithmetic computation, while the other half is represented by geometry problems. Examples

of items are included in the table bellow (Table 1).



12/20

Table 1: Examples of Items

ExampleType of Item

1. Consider the equation 2x + 3y – 8 = 0. If x = 1, then y = ... .

2. If x + 2


13/20

participants were informed by the experimenter that they had to start the test without the

opportunity to practice, and that this will be noted on their response forms. This excuse was

designed to reduce concerns related to assessment among participants, and thus to improve

test performance. Afterwards, participants were given the form with the arithmetic problems.

The other half of the sample received only the math test, without any information about

prior practice (control condition). When participants have nished the test, they were asked

to indicate their expected score on test, and to evaluate their performance on a scale ranging

from 1 (very low) to 6 (very good). After completing the scale participants were debriefed,

thanked and dismissed.

Results

A 2 (contextual factor) x 2 (suggested ability level) x 2 (participants’ gender) analysis of

variance (Anova) on math test performance revealed a signicant effect of contextual factor,

F(1,230)=6.35, p=.012, η2

=.028. In the external handicap condition, participants (M=18.37,SD=.90) performed better than in the control condition (M=15.16, SD=.89). The main effect

of ability level and gender was nonsignicant for this measure (F.05). Similarly, no

signicant interaction effects have been found for math test performance (F.05). Be-

sides, there is no interaction effect between gender and contextual factor on math test per-

formance, F(1,230)=2.03, p>.05; boys in the external handicap condition obtained better

test performance (M=19.40, SD=1.30) than boys in the no handicap condition (M=14.36,

SD=1.30), t(113)=2.65, p


14/20

Discussions

Results of the present study indicated that stereotype threat did not affect eight graders’ math

performances; participants obtained comparable test scores in both experimental conditions,

even if students expected better grades in high ability condition than in low ability condition.Additionally, no signicant differences have been computed for the math test scores among

male and female participants in high/low ability conditions.

The lack of signicant inuence of the stereotype threat may be explained by the subtle,

indirect manipulation operated in natural settings, which may have less impact on students’

math performance, although previous studies reported decreased female participants’ per-

formance in similar manipulated conditions, but in laboratory setting (Steele & Aronson,

1995; Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007). Some studies reviewed in the theoretical background

(Nguyen & Ryan, 2008; Walton & Cohen, 2003) pointed that subtle manipulation has stronger

effects on performance, in groups affected by the stereotype threat activation. However, effects

of stereotype threats have not been systematically studied in quasi-natural settings, and re-

search in real-life conditions produced contradictory outcomes. Some of the studies reported

effects of stereotype threats on young women and adolescent girls’ math performance (Keller,

2002; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003), and some obtained no signicant effects (Huguet &

Régner, 2007; Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007).

A different explanation for present results may reside in participants’ age. Although most

of the studies do not prove that negative stereotype operates in children, several studies

question this conclusion, founding stereotype threat effects in younger and older girls, but

not in intermediate-age girls (Ambady et al., 2001), while complementary research suggest

that in early adolescence boys and girls state that the two genders are equally good in math-

ematics (Muzzatti & Agnoli, 2007).

Present ndings suggest that this phenomenon is even more problematic than once assumed.They are in line with Huguet & Régner’s (2007) study previously discussed in this article,

although the age of the female participants is slightly higher in the present experiment (14

to 15). A parallel explanation may rest on social desirability that could induce students to

answer an explicit question with a socially acceptable answer. It is also possible that the

gender stereotype is internalized at this age and that, consequently, it exercises its effects in

the way that stereotype threat does. In other words, participants are not aware of (or deny)

the stereotype, but it is present implicitly. Obviously, this explanation may be that this cor-

rectly reects the belief that the two genders are equally capable in mathematics.

The lack of gender differences on math test may also be explained in relation with item

difculty and group composition. Previous studies suggest that stereotype threat effect is

powerful for difcult items (e.g. Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; O’Brien & Crandall, 2003),

while most of the items included in the test applied within the present study are of low and

average difculty. Mixed-gender settings may also reduce the stereotype threat effects on

female participants, as previously proved (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003; Huguet & Régner,

2007), although our research choice enhances the ecological validity of past laboratory

ndings and provides incentive for further investigation in the schools.

Research results suggest negative stereotype effects only for male participants, similar to

ndings illustrating boys’ tendency to use more intensively external handicaps for reducing

stereotype threat inuence (Brown & Josephs, 1999; McCrea, 2008). Some explanations

could be that women may be less threatened by task failure, or that men are less likely to



15/20

ascribe negative motivations to individuals who engage in self-handicapping behavior,

whereas women have little respect for individuals who lack motivation and fail to put forth

effort in important performance settings (Hirt, McCrea & Boris, 2003; McCrea, 2008).

Manipulation of an external handicap affect math test performance only in low ability

condition, but had no signicant impact in high ability condition. Participants in low ability

condition could have experienced a stronger stereotype threat before taking the test and thus,

the possibility of using the excuse contributed to better math performance than those obtained

by children in the control condition. The lack of adequate practice could provide a salient

reason for poor performance, and also could be self-protective, because a poor performance

could be attributed to the external factor and not one’s ability (Grimm et al, 2009; Brown &

Josephs, 1999; McCrea, 2008).

Further research in similar experimental conditions would be advisable, for providing

more detailed insights into the stereotype threat effects on both male and female participants,

and a longitudinal research design may uncover critical stages/ages in experiencing the

phenomenon and using external handicaps for decreasing its inuence. There is also a needfor more studies in natural settings, for assessing the scope of the phenomenon and its per-

vasive outcomes in students taking high importance tests/evaluations, which may decide

their future educational tracks.

References

Abrams, D., Eller, A., Bryant, J. (2006). An Age Apart: The Effects of Intergenerational Contact and

Stereotype Threat on Performance and Intergroup Bias. Psychology and Aging , 21 (4),

691–702.

Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects

of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 12, 385−390.

Aronson J., Lustina M.J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C.M., Brown J. (1999). When White Men

Can’t Do Math: Necessary and Sufcient Factors in Stereotype Threat. Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 35, 29-46.

Benbow, C. P., Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science,

210, 1262–1264.

Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., Inzlicht, M. (2005). Stereotype Threat and Arousal. Journal of Experimental

Social. Psychology, 41, 174-181.

Brown, R. P., Day, E. A. (2006). The difference isn’t Black and White: Stereotype threat and the race

gap on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 979-

985.

Brown, R. B., Josephs, R. A. (1999). A burden of proof: Stereotype relevance and gender differences

in math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 246-257.Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Frigerio, S., Impagliazzo, L., Latinotti, S. (2003). Stereotype Threat: The effect

of expectancy on performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 267-285.

Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., Kiesner, J. (2005). Why Do Women Underperform Under

Stereotype Threat? Evidence for the Role of Negative Thinking. Psychological Science, 16,

572-578.

Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs: Journal

of Women in Culture and Society, 11(21), 367-380.

Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., Harold, R. E. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’

socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183-201.

Eccles, J. S., Wigeld, A., Harold, R., Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in chil-

dren’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.



16/20

Gallagher, A. M., Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psycho-

logical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grimm, L.R., Markman, A.B., Maddox, W.T., Baldwin, G.C. (2009). Stereotype threat reinterpreted

as a regulatory mismatch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (2), 288-304.

Hirt, E. R., McCrea, S. M., Boris, H. I. (2003). “I know you self-handicapped last exam:” Gender differences in reactions to self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

84, 177-193.

Huguet, P., Régner, I. (2007). Stereotype threat among school girls in quasi-ordinary classroom cir-

cumstances. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 545-560.

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Lamon, S.J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: a meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.

Inzlicht, M., Ben-Zeev, T. (2003). Do high-achieving female students underperform in private? The

implications of threatening environments on intellectual processing. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 95, 796–805.

Keller, J., Dauenheimer, D. (2003) Stereotype threat in the classroom: Dejection mediates the disrupting

threat effect on women’s math performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

29, 371-381.

Keller, J. (2002). Blatant stereotype threat and women’s math performance: Self-handicapping as a

strategic means to cope with obtrusive negative performance expectations. Sex Roles, 47,

193-198.

Keller, J. (2007). Stereotype threat in classroom settings: The interactive effects of domain identication,

task difculty, and stereotype threat on female student’s math performance. British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 77, 323-338.

Lummis, M., Stevenson, H. W. (1990). Gender differences in beliefs and achievement: A cross-cultural

study. Developmental Psychology, 26, 254-263.

McCrea, S. M. (2008). Self-handicapping, excuse making, and coutnerfactual thinking: Consequences

of self-esteem and future motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 274-

292.Mills, C.J., Ablard, K.E., Stumpf, H. (1993). Gender differences in academically talented young students’

mathematical reasoning: Patterns across age and subskills. Journal of Educational Psychology,

85, 340–346.

Muzzatti, B., Agnoli, F. (2007). Gender and mathematics: Attitudes and stereotype threat susceptibility

in Italian children. Developmental Psychology, 43 (3): 747-59.

Nguyen, H. H., Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect cognitive ability test performance

of minorities and women? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93, 1314-1335.

O’Brien, L., Crandall, C. (2003). Stereotype Threat and Arousal: Effects on Women’s Math Perform-

ance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (6), 782-789.

Quinn, D., Spencer, S. (2001). The interference of stereotype threat with women’s generation of

mathematical problem-solving strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (1), 55-71.Robinson, N.M., Abbott, R.D., Berninger, V.W., Busse, J. (1996). The structure of abilities in math-

precocious young children: Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 88, 341–352.

Schmader, T., Johns M. (2003). Converging Evidence That Stereotype Threat Reduces Working

Memory Capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440-452.

Smith, J.L., White., P.H. (2001). Development of the Domain Identication Measure: A Tool for In-

vestigating Stereotype Threat Effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 61(6),

1040-1057.

Spencer, S.J., Steele, C.M., Quinn, D.M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.



17/20

Stangor, C., Carr, C., Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expecta-

tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191-1197.

Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.

American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Steele, C.M., Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811

Steele, C.M., Spencer, S. J., Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of

stereotype and social identity threat. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 379-440, NY: Academic Press.

Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39,

456-457.

Wicherts, J.M., Dolan, C.V., & Hessen, D.J. (2005). Stereotype threat and group differences in test

performance: A question of measurement invariance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 89, 696-716.

Wigeld, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, C., Blumenfeld,

P. C. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the

elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451-

469.

About the Authors

Dr. Loredana Ruxandra Gherasim

Her teaching and research interests include psychological research methodology, social and

educational psychology. She published several articles in national and international peer-

reviewed journals and one book.

Dr. Nicoleta Laura Popa

Nicoleta L. Popa is a lecturer at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, “Alex-

andru Ioan Cuza” University of Iasi, Romania. Her teaching and research interests include

educational research methodology, intercultural education and gifted education. She published

several articles in national and international peer-reviewed journals and two books (one co-

authored).



18/20


19/20

EDITORSMary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDMichael Apple, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.David Barton, Lancaster University, Milton Keynes, UK.Mario Bello, University of Science, Cuba.Manuela du Bois-Reymond, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.Robert Devillar , Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, USA.

Daniel Madrid Fernandez, University of Granada, Spain.Ruth Finnegan, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.James Paul Gee, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.Juana M. Sancho Gil, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.Kris Gutierrez, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.Anne Hickling-Hudson, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.Roz Ivanic, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.Carey Jewitt, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.Andeas Kazamias, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.Peter Kell, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, Montclair, USA.Gunther Kress, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.Colin Lankshear , James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.Kimberly Lawless, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA.Sarah Michaels, Clark University, Worcester, USA.Jeffrey Mok, Miyazaki International College, Miyazaki, Japan.Denise Newfield, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.Ernest O’Neil, Ministry of Education, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.José-Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.Francisco Fernandez Palomares, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.Ambigapathy Pandian, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.Miguel A. Pereyra, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.Scott Poynting, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.Angela Samuels, Montego Bay Community College, Montego Bay, Jamaica.

Michel Singh, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Helen Smith, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.Richard Sohmer , Clark University, Worcester, USA.Brian Street, University of London, London, UK.Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.Salim Vally, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South AfricaGella Varnava-Skoura, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.Cecile Walden, Sam Sharpe Teachers College, Montego Bay, Jamaica.Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.Wang Yingjie, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.Zhou Zuoyu, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Learning-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.


20/20

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theoriesand practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships

with society.ISSN: 1833-1866

http://www.Arts-Journal.com

Explores the past, present and future of books,publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning

in the information society.ISSN: 1447-9567

http://www.Book-Journal.com

Examines the meaning and purpose of ‘design’ whilealso speaking in grounded ways about the task of

design and the use of designed artefacts andprocesses.

ISSN: 1833-1874http://www.Design-Journal.com

Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body ofknowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference

and diversity.ISSN: 1447-9583

http://www.Diversity-Journal.com

Maps and interprets new trends and patterns inglobalisation.

ISSN 1835-4432http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplatingthe future and the human, in an era otherwise

dominated by scientific, technical and economicrationalisms.

ISSN: 1447-9559http://www.Humanities-Journal.com

Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build abody of knowledge on the nature and future of

learning.ISSN: 1447-9540

http://www.Learning-Journal.com

Creates a space for discussion of the nature andfuture of organisations, in all their forms and

manifestations.ISSN: 1447-9575

http://www.Management-Journal.com

Addresses the key question: How can the institutionof the museum become more inclusive?

ISSN 1835-2014http://www.Museum-Journal.com

Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinaryapproaches to knowledge creation within and acrossthe various social sciences and between the social,

natural and applied sciences.ISSN: 1833-1882

http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com

Draws from the various fields and perspectivesthrough which we can address fundamental

questions of sustainability.ISSN: 1832-2077

http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com

Focuses on a range of critically important themes inthe various fields that address the complex and

subtle relationships between technology, knowledgeand society.

ISSN: 1832-3669http://www.Technology-Journal.com

Investigates the affordances for learning in the digitalmedia, in school and throughout everyday life.

ISSN 1835-2030

http://www.ULJournal.com

Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy intimes of striking social transformation.

ISSN 1835-2030

http://www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE [email protected]

l09 20278 stereotypethreatsandmathtestperformance final 22nov

Documents